More Year End Review Goodness

Now that we've finally awoke from our alcohol induced comas from New Year's Eve, and have taken a look around Al Gore's internet, it appears that a fair number of media outlets were a little "late" with some of their 2006 box office reviews. Go Figure. Here's a look at a little more of the talk going around entertainment circles in year end summaries about just how big of a turd Singerman really was.

• The New Yorker (NY) - "But “Superman Returns,” with its underwritten script and its bland hero, was not just boring but superfluous: in the digital years since the 1978 “Superman”—which have also seen five “Batman”s, two “Spider-Man”s, and three “X-Men”s—the airborne crusader has lost his wonder. But Warner, in late October, announced that it would make yet another “Superman” film. Variety earlier summed up the situation as follows: “Many speculate that WB has invested too much time and money to walk away. What’s more, the film fuels a number of Time Warner outlets, including homevid, ancillaries, and merchandising—even subsid DC Comics." So there you have it: the business model swallows the studio, which, obliged to supply its conglomerate outlets and subsidiaries, cannot prevent itself from repeating a failure."

• Movieweb - "2006 will be talked about as a year that was great for the business side, but terrible for the artistic side, and, I've gotta tell you folks, it really wasn't that great in either aspect. Superman Returns, probably one of the most over-hyped and over-marketed flicks in recent history, was the 5th highest grossing movie of the year at just over $200 million... and it LOST $70 million."

• Hollywood Reporter (CA) - "Meanwhile, Warner Bros. Pictures, which arguably had one of the most anticipated slates of the year, had difficulty delivering and dropped from a first-place market share in 2005 to fourth place because of such misfires as "Poseidon," M. Night Shyamalan's "Lady in the Water" and a disappointing "Superman Returns," even though the superhero's long-awaited return did climb above the $200 million mark domestically."

• Fort Collins Weekly (CO) - "It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s the biggest flying turkey of the year. As the Man of Steel, newcomer Brandon Routh did a super impression of balsa wood in tights. "

• Wilmington Morning Star (NC) - Best wig of the year: Kevin Spacey's, playing Lex Luthor in the five-hour snoozathon called Superman Returns.

• Austin Chronicle (TX) - Most Forgettable: Superman Returns. I can't remember anything about this picture. Can't remember faces, mise-en-scène, not one damn thing. Somebody flew, right? And I recall now that the remarkable Peta Wilson had a bit role she'd never be reduced to in a just world.

• The Billings Outpost (MT) - It has its slow moments and gets a little too wrapped up in the psychology of its core characters... He pushes a small continent into orbit, for God’s sake!

• Monsters and Critics - "The next award goes to ‘Superman Returns’ in the Needs More Action category. I was more psyched to see this movie than the Scarlett Johansson sex tape. On paper the film had everything working for it, an unknown as Superman, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and Bryan Singer calling the shots. So where’s the action? He’s the Man of Steel, punch somebody already! It’s cool that bullets bounce off your eye, but knock somebody out with more than your kick ass breath!"

• The Village Voice (NY) - Superman Returns (all downhill from the credit sequence...)

• Philadelphia Daily News (PA) - "'Happy Feet' was a much-needed big hit for Warner, which had been less than overjoyed by the $200 million gross of "Superman Returns."

You noticing a trend here yet?

Singerman: The End of the Year Reviews

Several of the major media outlets (besides those owned by WB) have done year end pieces about the 2006 movies and of course Singerman. Here's a look at what's being said at the end of the year in which Superman was supposed to return, but all we got was this lousy t-shirt.

• Detroit Free Press - "For nine months, the cabal that is Hollywood has an unspoken agreement that it will release no film of actual greatness, unless, of course, it also happens to also be of great commercial potential. That is why "Superman Returns" (which failed to live up to its moneymaking potential, perhaps because it was too subtle) and "Cars" were released this summer."

• Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA) - But "Pirates" covered up the colossal failure of another sure-fire Hollywood franchise. "Superman Returns" exploded onto the scene in June and quickly sank into irrelevance.

• Blogcritics Magazine - Superman Returns - a ridiculous story to feature the return of Supes.

• The Toronto Sun - "Look past the eye-popping $1-billion US bounty hauled in by Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and you'll see a horizon scattered with costly letdowns -- from the barely broke-even Superman Returns to the utterly disastrous Poseidon."

• The Decatur Daily (AL) - "Two icons returned this year, one with renewed relevance, the other creaking under his own pretensions. Strangely, James Bond, the character who shouldn't work divorced from his Cold War origins, showed new energy. Meanwhile, the supposedly timeless Superman, remained as stiff and lifeless as ever, not so much the Man of Steel as the man of rigor mortis."

• The Joliet Herald News (IL) - "Who needs kryptonite? "Superman Returns," one of the year's most anticipated movies, quietly falls to earth. Not that that has stopped Hollywood from greenlighting a sequel." (SSS note: The sequel hasn't been greenlit yet, Singer was just signed to develop one.)

• St. Petersburg Times (FL) - "Don’t go overboard with the Champagne, though. Too many sequels, remakes and knockoffs still take up too much megaplex space and public attention. But consumers seem to be wising up a bit ­— just ask Superman, if he returns again."

• Jam! Showbiz (Canada) - "Or that Brandon Routh, touted just 12 months ago for super-stardom as soon as he was announced as the new Man of Steel in Superman Returns, would remain more anonymous than not in the first days of 2007 after the would-be blockbuster sputtered more than soared?"

• Miami Herald (FL) - Best self-indulgent directorial flourish: The "Heart and Soul" sequence in Bryan Singer's Superman Returns: Menacing tattoos, a fax, chopsticks on the piano, and the movies' first appearance of Superboy.

• St. Petersburg Times (Russia) - "Meanwhile, “Superman Returns” was on the edge of being imbecilic and it seemed like it was made for 10-year-olds to watch while their moms run errands."

Global Box Office Reports:

• Australia - "Superman Returns" should have performed well Down Under because it was lensed in Sydney but film did not even make the top 10, returning $11 million, well shy of the $15.5 million indicated by the 10% rule.
• Germany - Underachievers at the Teutonic box office include "Superman Returns," which made only $4 million. In Germany, comicbook heroes face a never-ending battle for cinematic recognition.
• Mexico - Still, Mexicans this year didn't like their American superheroes to be bland: "Superman Returns" for one slumped at local wickets.
• Italy - Hollywood titles that elsewhere had been summer films but were Italo fall releases played below par, such as "Superman Returns" ($7 million) and "Miami Vice" ($4.4 million).
• France - Below par were "Miami Vice" ($12 million), "Superman Returns" ($11.5 million), "Cars" and "Happy Feet."
• Hong Kong - Top 10 films "Superman," "X-Men 3" and "Cars" all arguably underperformed against expectations -- as did bomb of the year "Poseidon."

Some pretty damning evidence right there, both in media opinion and B.O. statistics.

A happy and safe new year to all of you out there! Yes, even you Bryan.

"One of the Biggest Disappointments of 2006"

Sure we've been saying this for over 5 months now, so for that to come from us, it wouldn't mean a whole heck of a lot. However when that comment is coming out of the mouth of someone at a nationally respected publication, people will sit up and take notice. And when said publication just so happens to be owned by Warner Brothers, well then that's really telling and pretty darn humorous if you ask us. That's right folks, Entertainment Weekly has come out with their list of the biggest disappointments in entertainment for the year 2006, and guess who's near the top of the list? Yup you guessed it, neither your friend or mine, Singerman!

Here's a few choice quotes from EW's Assistant Managing Editor, Dawnie Walton:

"Cut to opening weekend, me asleep in a theater. I checked out around the time someone exposition'ed that Lois Lane (a limp Kate Bosworth) had won a Pulitzer — a Pulitzer! — for some petulant, woman-done-wrong essay titled ''Why the World Doesn't Need Superman.'' When I woke up, Kevin Spacey was screaming at me, and former soap star Brandon Routh was doing something amazingly tedious with a huge floating island of Kryptonite. I wouldn't have minded if the movie had been merely bad — it would've given me something to talk about/make fun of with my husband on the walk home from the theater — but Superman Returns was just... boring. And is there anything worse than that?"

Well she certainly hit the proverbial nail on the head! I don't think there's anything else that we can add to that which hasn't already been mentioned here. The fact that something like is getting published by a WB entity leads me to believe that there's just a bit of a difference of opinion among some of the major players at WB as far as Singerman is concerned.

Why Singerman is an "Affront to all That is Good and Decent?"

A reader sent us this link to a rant by Thom Holbrook over on PooBala.com. Overall it's a pretty good read and hits a lot of the same points that we did about the film. He also has some amusing ways to fill in some of the blanks in plot and logic with the film. One of our favorite parts of the rant reads as follows:

"Lois Lane had a child and became involved with Perry White's son. Seeing that Lois is practically engaged to Richard White, Superman does what any true heroic figure would do. He steps aside. Oh no… wait… I got that wrong. Let me go again. Seeing that Lois is practically engaged to Richard White, Superman tries to mack on her and seduce her away, only stopping when Lois tells him to back off. But THEN he backs off and goes away. Wait… no… wrong again. Sorry. After that Superman flies to Lois's house and like a super powered stalker floats outside watching their every move inside with his x-ray vision. I get the idea. Superman is outcast and alone and we pity him. Again, I don't want to pity Superman. And regardless of why he is doing it, it's creepy. Finally, I have no pity for this Superman because this is a situation all of his own making. He flew off into space for five years on an idiotic mission showing no concern for Lois Lane. Now she's involved and happy and I should pity Bag-Of-Hammers Man? I don't even like the dolt at this point."

Wow, it's as if this guy was channeling the staff here when writing this. A long review but well worth a read in our opinion.

Poland wins; Wells recants; Chud.com rules!

Way back before The Great Embargo, diametrically opposed reviews of Singerman - as written between sworn film critic enemies Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere, and David Poland of The Hot Button and Movie City News - kept Superman fans more entertained than Singerman.

For those who missed the party, Noel Murray summed it up best in his A.V. Club Blog:

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the game of assertion and retraction going on among the industry pundits, and one of the most entertaining pastimes of the summer has been following the sniping between David Poland and Jeffrey Wells, both of whom would probably dispute being dubbed "industry pundits," even though they spend as much time reporting (and debating) "the numbers" as they do acting as critics or trendspotters. Anyway, Wells came out early for Superman Returns, which he found grand and relevant, while Poland found it plodding and needlessly sober. Poland was more turned on by Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, which he thought was thrilling and fun, while Wells found it a soulless amusement park ride. Needless to say, they've both been reporting the box office returns and Rotten Tomatoes scores with a pronounced partisan tone. When Poland initially underreported the Superman numbers, Wells jumped on him; and Wells has been flooding his site with snippets of negative Pirates reviews by heavyweight critics.

Wells went on to gush more about the film, but ultimately, Poland "won" the debate before the film ever unspooled. Evidence his opening comments in his first review of Singerman, dated June 15, 2006:

Where to start on Superman Returns? It's terribly cast, poorly conceived, extremely light on action, features a romance that is not remotely romantic, doesn't feature a single memorable, "gosh, that was great" repeat-to-your-friends moment in a positive way (the blunder bits start early and often), will be crushed by Pirates of The Caribbean II and played out completely before August 1.

But what's this we see? Has Jeffrey Wells grown a pair? Errr... maybe he's just become a little more critical over the last couple of months? And well he SHOULD!

As posted today on his blog, it looks like he's doing some backpedalling:

Honestly, truly -- if you were Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov at Warner Bros., would you greenlight a second Superman film? Would you want Bryan Singer to "go all Wrath of Khan-y" on it or would you hire someone else of his general calbire? [sic]

If it was my call I'd say yes to Singer but under the following conditions:

(a) He has to bring in a two-hour film -- no ifs, ands or buts;

(b) Kate Bosworth is dimissed as Lois Lane and Rachel McAdams replaces her in a no-big-deal way, like it was when Val Kilmer was suddenly the new Batman;

(c) All major plot turns and occurences in the script would have to be submitted to a three-person Logic Review Board made up of Superman movie geeks who would ixnay stuff like Superman falling back to earth from gravity when he's well beyond the earth's gravitational pull;

(d) No special effects sequences that make you want to go for a bathroom or popcorn break the second time you see the film; and

(e) Singer doesn't get his sign off on marketing.

Wells' list of "fixes" are quite interesting, to say the least.

Also note the link to chud.com. Devin Faraci does a great job of summing up the big picture based on Variety's article from yesterday. Excerpt:

The problem there is that no one has figured out why Superman can't fly. Is it because of Pirates? Is it because the character is hokey? Is it because the film just isn't that good? If it's the first one, the DVD could do very well. If it's the second two, there's trouble in Metropolis. Everyone keeps comparing Superman Returns to Batman Begins, but besides the fact that their budgets are very, very different, Batman had legs, which indicated good word of mouth. That later materialized as good DVD sales. Superman has legs like Christopher Reeve, and that could mean a poor showing at the video store.

Ouch!!

Singerman is one heck of a money pit for Warners. Too bad the parent company doesn't have a circus shingle as well. With films like Singerman, Poseidon and Lady in the Water, they certainly have enough white elephants to frolic with the studio's newly appointed big blue and maroon clown.